|
|
Post by easye on Sept 27, 2023 10:19:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Sept 29, 2023 7:43:46 GMT -5
I will be honest I have stopped playing Team Yankee and Battlegroup Northaag since the invasion of Ukraine started. Perhaps a bit hypocritical (as I have no problem wargaming most other periods) but it felt a bit close to home, especially as I have a Ukranian acquaintance and could see the affect the invasion had had on him. It also felt like the rules of those games needed to be re-written to make Russian forces incredibly inept (although we will have no way of knowing if, in a 'cold war gone hot' scenario the Soviet forces would performed poorly in the same way). But, I sold a collection and donated the proceeds to a mental health and support charity for veterans, and I guess at least now the pile of shame is a little smaller..
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Sept 29, 2023 7:54:29 GMT -5
I don't think the performance of the current Russian military can be used to judge the effectiveness of the late Soviet military. For a start, the Ukrainian military is descended from the same Soviet origin but is displaying consistently superior decision making. Going the other way, late-WWII Soviet forces were pretty effective. The current Russian army is as far removed from 80's USSR as the latter is from WWII.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Sept 29, 2023 11:15:52 GMT -5
Also for all the deserved dunking on the Russian military they clearly have people that *do* know what they're doing. Defence in depth, hiding behind minefields and trying to attrition the Ukrainian army is a sound strategy with what they have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Sept 29, 2023 11:28:07 GMT -5
Also for all the deserved dunking on the Russian military they clearly have people that *do* know what they're doing. Defence in depth, hiding behind minefields and trying to attrition the Ukrainian army is a sound strategy with what they have. Very true. The Russian defences highlight both the good and the bad in the Russian military very well. The defences are competently constructed to a great depth of many kilometres. At a tactical level they are being defended well. However, for whatever reason the Russian forces are not actually using these for a true defense in depth (trading space for lives) and are instead focusing on a aggressive, high-intensity defense of the forwardmost defences. They seem to be unwilling to yield any ground at all and are suffering terrible attrition for it. There are a few possible reasons for this, but the most likely to me is that it is a political directive from the Kremlin to expend lives holding territory at all costs. An attempt at a show of strength that may backfire hugely if the Russian forces break and run out of reserves. The political situation would be different for a Soviet government. |
|
|
|
Post by easye on Sept 29, 2023 11:33:22 GMT -5
If anyone watched the Taiwan Wargame, it was interesting to me that by Turn 3, the Chinese team had expanded the war to Japan and Australia and all ready detonated a High-altitude Nuke as a form of Nuclear deterrence.
If you watched the video from Australia, it is striking to me how much the Chinese representative sounds like a member of the Kaiser's Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Sept 29, 2023 13:52:19 GMT -5
Defending is what the Russians do relatively well, because sitting tight works quite well with their ponderous military hierarchy.
Taking the initiative always seems to be an absolute struggle that requires overwhelming force, because there seems to be very little emphasis on Auftragstaktik and a lot on micromanagement. Even in Chechnya the deficiency of the Russian army on the attack was painfully obvious. Turns out they didn't get a lot of reforms done in 20 years time.
This wasn't that different under Stalin, Soviet forces started becoming more successful when he started micromanaging less. But Putin migjt be even more paranoid than Stalin at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Nov 6, 2023 12:39:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Nov 7, 2023 3:12:16 GMT -5
Those guys have a fun job!
So it didn't explicitly say so I don't think, but the implication in that video was that the US fleet would be able to stop the invasion? (Or at least stymie it enough to be able to commit enough troops and the invasion fails etc?)
I guess you have the issue you now have is the most powerful military on earth, by far, but the levelling factor is that it is having to project that power directly off the coast of China. I assume now we have to think of China as America's nearest rival in terms of military power, after the humbling of Russia in Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Nov 7, 2023 10:42:50 GMT -5
Indeed. Many of the usual suspects are trying to drum up a "China Cold War".
Edit: Oh yeah, all the big wargames I have seen show the US "winning" with a large loss of life on all sides. However, Taiwan stays independent.
However, I am not really sure how well we can gauge the effectiveness of Chinese equipment or doctrine by reading what they the Chinese Armed Forces have put out.
One of the most disturbing elements of the wargames is China's "first strike" on Hawaii/Guam/forward US bases. It would basically be Pearl Harbor II: China Boogaloo. The sequel nobody wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Nov 8, 2023 5:47:37 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see what the outcome of the Chinese wargames on the conflict was! One of the big question marks is over how effective the Chinese military would be. I was reading an article on Chinese air power recently, which had several supposed consultants on the topic; there was way too much "should be" or "we think" being used in the descriptions, in terms of how effective the 4th and now 5th generation Chinese aircraft are likely to be. If you don't know something fundamental like that; let say the effectiveness of a missile or aircraft when it is trying to take out an aircraft carrier, or indeed how many of those missiles or aircraft the Chinese possess, how can you then wargame out the result effectively? The aircraft carriers being able to survive the opening hours of a conflict, and then project US power to the area, I think would be the crunch point over whether China would be able to conquer Taiwan. We know from our own wargames.. adding 25% of a points value to a side, or even giving a slight toughness increase to a unit, can completely change the result of a game! (and then you often see that something hasn't been playtested properly..  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Nov 8, 2023 5:55:53 GMT -5
Well, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". History shows that overestimating your opponent is generally more effective than underestimating them.
With that in mind, you should wargame your opponents as having their on-paper strength. How good they would be if everything works as advertised. This can obviously be tempered with intelligence on stuff that isn't in the public domain (like maintenance requirements and non-combat attrition rates). In general, if you plan to beat an enemy at their best, you will do much better than if you try to judge how crap they are and plan for that.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
Member is Online
|
Post by skyth on Nov 8, 2023 7:23:13 GMT -5
Well, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". History shows that overestimating your opponent is generally more effective than underestimating them. . There's also an old saying that the best swordman in the world shouldn't fear the second best swordsman in the world, but rather the novice swordsman. |
|
|
|
Post by easye on Nov 8, 2023 11:04:00 GMT -5
As we have seen in Russia, we can't be sure how effective the much vaunted "Hyper-sonic" missiles will actually be. Those play a HUGE role in China's plan for taking out Carriers.
In one of the first Wargames I posted, it is also disturbing how fast the "China" team went to a nuclear air burst over the West Coast of the US based on their reading of Chinese military nuclear doctrine. I think it was turn 3, so only a few days/a week in or so?
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Nov 17, 2023 16:13:56 GMT -5
|
|
)